Jump to content

Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

The Writing of the Article

Rather than going off on tangents like discussing the nationality/ citizenship of rather-obscure people, it is better to write about improving the Wikipedia article as it now stands. It definitely needs a lot of improvement. Most of it now ready like a series of facts dropped randomly into ones ear like raindrops falling in a heavy rain. There is little or no overlying structure or "theme" to the exposition. Facts in an exposition need to be organized to support the structure of the ideas behind it. I would suggest as a start-up describing decade-by-decade how the rationales of choices for the Prize have evolved, and further, how the literature under consideration itself had evolved. Clearly, literature written in the 1910s is different from literature written in the 1990s, for example. Also, reasons could be given and supported as to why giants of literature who were widely published (such as Steinbeck and Hemmingway) were once chosen, but in the last several decades, the move has been to obscure and even unknown writers in languages that are not widely published, and whose works have not been widely translated and published, either. I personally don't see much point in giving the Prize to obscure writers in obscure languages whose works have not been widely published. Where does that lead? To a writer from some place like Zanzibar or Kazakhstan who has written one book of which 100 copies were printed??74.249.76.34 (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody cares one bit about what you "personally see a point in" or not. Based on your other contributions, you're probably a troll. I've removed your mad supremacy theories as they have nothing to do with this article (not to mention reality). I'm leaving this comment in as it is related to the topic, but be aware that Wikipedia is not a discussion board for us to express our personal prejudices. JdeJ (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Henryk Sienkiewicz's Citizenship

79.126.22.44 (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Alex

I'm sorry, this Nobel prize winner was a citizen of the Russian empire, not Poland Off course, the Great Principality of Poland existed but it was a part of the Russian empire. That's why pan Sienkiewicz was a Polish-speaker Russian writer!!☺ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.22.44 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 1 April 2008

I've changed Henryk Sienkiewicz's nationality back to Poland for the same reason that Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson (1903 laureate) is listed with Norway instead of Sweden, even though Norway was a part of Sweden in 1903. Poland may have been part of the Russian empire in 1905 but it was also a personal union. –panda (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
From what I understand, Norway was not part of Sweden, but both countries were forming a union. A current example would be: Northern Ireland is not part of England, but both are members of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. --Itub (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Norway was given to Sweden after Denmark-Norway lost the Napoleonic wars, via the Treaty of Kiel. There's more details in Norway in 1814 and 1814 in Norway. During 1814, when Norway was to be ceded to Sweden, Norway attempted to declare its independence but Sweden then attacked Norway. To avoid a continued war with Sweden, Norway agreed to form a union with Sweden and did not became independent from Sweden until 1905. Norway could not dissolved the union on its own, Sweden had to first acknowledge it, which in practical terms meant that Norway was a part of Sweden until Sweden agreed otherwise.
I'm unfamiliar with why Great Britain and Northern Ireland are in a union. This isn't any different from listing Austria instead of Austria-Hungary for Robert Bárány (1914 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine). If Poland should be replaced with "Russian Empire", then Norway should be replaced with "Union of Sweden and Norway" and Austria with "Austria-Hungary", but they're not currently so. The question of Henryk Sienkiewicz's nationality should also be taken up in his article with the editors who listed his nationality as Polish, not Russian.
On a side note to 79.126.xx.xx, Wikipedia should not be used as a reference for itself. –panda (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Sienkiewicz was born in Podlachia, could we use that? Otherwise his nationality is listed as Polish on his wikipage, he wrote in Polish, he called himself the 'son of Poland' in his Nobel acceptance speech, thought of himself as Polish, his ashes were repatriated to Poland, Congress Poland was a puppet state of Russia, but a puppet state is still not the main state (i.e. even though Russia ruled, it allowed Poland the political appearance of independence). Sienkiewicz was born into Congress Poland and died when it became the Kingdom of Poland, puppet state of Germany (going by the wikipages on history of Poland). So, I say Polish. Better yet would be a convention for things like this, anyone know of any guidelines in this area? WLU (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the entry for Poland (and the many good reasons why have been listed above). I'd like to remind everyone that editors of this page have largely agreed (after much discussion, recently deleted by WLU) to abide by the listing on the Nobel website for a final authority (in this case, he is listed under Poland). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irregulargalaxies (talk • contribs)
Do you mean deleted, or archived, linked to in the archive box at the top of the page (here)? I very, very briefly searched the previous page for guidance on this and couldn't find any, but if there was previous discussion we should link to it. No sense re-inventing the wheel. WLU (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah - archived, then. My mistake - thank you.
After soliciting opinions from a variety of sources in the Wikipedia community (moderated by panda), it was decided to go by the book (in this case, the Nobel foundation and the book Nobel: The Man and his Prizes). This is located in the archived talk page under RFC: Country data in Nobel lists and applies to all the Nobel sites, not just literature. I'll note that the site does not subscribe rigorously to those rules currently, as countries in which authors held/hold citizenship (as verified by a reliable source) are also currently listed in the same column. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The relevant links would be Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country data in Nobel lists and Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#Closing comments. Looking at the closing comments, it wasn't really decided which countries to keep in the list, but it was decided to use the common name for all countries/nationalities. There have been other related discussions in the archive here for various laureates. –panda (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-laureates and controversies.

The author of the article states that in 1976 on Americans were awarded Prizes, in honor of the Bicentennial. This is not true, the Peace Prize in 1976 was awarded to two women from the UK for their work in Northern Ireland. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/1976.html Scotty4536 (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Corrected the problem mentioned above (deleted unsourced parenthetical comment) and corrected some errors in related source citations. --NYScholar (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Haha07:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC) 194.116.199.218 (talk)

Criticism

I see that the criticism section doesn't feature the rather common criticism of how the prize mainly is reserved for European/ American/ Australian/ Canadian authors writing in English. Sweden alone has received more prizes than the whole Asian continent, offering a rather extreme case of how the Academy is only aware of authors close to their own culture. While German was the first foreign language in Sweden, the prize usually went to German authors. These days, with fewer and fewer Swedes able to understand any other language than English, the prize goes to authors writing in English at least every second year. The Academy's extreme focus on Sweden, Europe and the English language for a prize that is claimed to be truly "international" has been the subject of quite extensive criticism and I think a section on it would be appropriate. JdeJ (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only that but also notice how most Nobel prices were given to German and French speakers before the 2nd World War but afterwards there the biggest number of awards is given to Americans and British people especially of Jewish decend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 21:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

this article does not say what are the eligible languages and problem with tagore entry

bold text'this article does not say what are the eligible languages for nobel in literature and does not describe how minor languages are equally considered for the prize, if they indeed are. this process needs to be explained in the article

and problem with tagore entry in list of winners: it says the language of his works is bengali, but in the description by the nobel commitee it says he wrote in english. can you reconcile this? —preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.238.130 (talk) 16:59, 9 october 2008 (utc)

There are no language requirements for the Nobel; lack of suitable translations will mean less exposure to the judges of the Swedish Academy, but the original work may be in any language. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

From the lead:

  • "..whereas others contend that others, who are already well known, do not deserve it"

Apart from the simply ugly repetition of the word 'others', it's not at all clear. Does it mean:

  • "..whereas other people think that some winners do not deserve it because they are already well known."

Or

  • "..whereas other people think that some of the previously-famous winners do not deserve it."

Or just

  • "..whereas other people think some winners do not deserve it."

I don't have an opinion on the subject: it's just pretty sloppy writing. 78.113.222.86 (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sod it, I've edited it. Please change if necessary. 78.113.222.86 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The will of Alfred Nobel

...in the words from the will of Alfred Nobel, produced "the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency" (original Swedish: den som inom litteraturen har producerat det utmärktaste i idealisk riktning)

'Idealisk' in Swedish translates into Ideal, not Idealistic. The proper translation is found at http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/laureate_reading.html and states: '...one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction.'

Rhthomsen (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't true at all. The translation has recently been disputed, as trends in literature have shifted I should say, to "ideal" over "idealistic." It should be changed back to idealistic with a note on modern interpretation.--J.Dayton (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Prize FOR Literature

Prize IN literature is unidiomatic - a lazy reflection of the 'i' in the Swedish "Nobelpriset i litteratur", but perhaps it is the official form used by the Swedish Academy. Ironic that they should get language wrong. Don't all normal people talk about the Nobel Prize for Literature? Tsinfandel (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be pretty mixed; a quick Google search suggests that a lot of people do use "in," although "for" is more popular. At any rate, you're correct is that "in literature" is the official form, or at least the form their English-language web-site uses.Deadlyhair (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Malraux in Controversies section

Some piecemeal editing in this section makes it unclear what it is trying to say. Perhaps the editor can revisit this and clarify the original intent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.117.148 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Only two editors are discussing this, so far, and we've reached an impasse. The discussion isn't very long, but more participation might help resolve the matter. The discussion is at Talk:List of Nobel laureates in Literature, "Links to national literatures and "[year] in literature"" section (sorry, apparently a direct link won't work). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hephzibah Anderson quote

Not sure if his opinion merits inclusion in the article, but I do know the way it's presented can mislead readers:

  • The journalist Hephzibah Anderson has noted that the Man Booker International Prize "is fast becoming the more significant award, appearing an ever more competent alternative to the Nobel."

without quoting what came before:

  • It's in keeping with the way she lives her creative life that she should scoop not the established Man Booker Prize (only novels are eligible, though judge Claire Tomalin insisted that she be included on the 1980 shortlist for The Beggar Maid), but the newer Man Booker International. It is equally fitting that this is fast becoming the ... Ssscienccce (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Citations

I am removing the "citations needed" banner at the top of the page because most of the article has clear, verifiable citations and it just seems like the banner for the entire page is no longer necessary. I have put a few "citation needed" tags in the "Controversies about Nobel Laureate selections" section to indicate specific places where citations are still outstanding. --Arthistorygrrl (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Camus listed in opposition to Eurocentrism criticism section

I find the photo of Camus next to the section on criticisms of Eurocentrism to be rather innane, his credentials as "African-born" hardly has any bearings on what the section is discussing. A proper non-European winner should be listed if the purpose is to display a significant glass-ceiling broken in the award. 89.100.70.175 (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Placing some punctuation inside quotation marks?

Hi all. I'm curious about a grammar convention. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:LQ we should "include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark." There are several sentences that seem to require a period to be moved. Any objection if I make these minor edits?

Preceding comment posted by Kawika (talk).
Placement after quotation marks is British practice. Sca (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox width

The Latest Nobel Prize infobox seems too wide, and implies we think Dylan is more important than all the other recipients. It should be the same width as the other jpg thumbs on the right side of the page. Sca (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait, why are the main page and the article so vague about the 2018 controversy?

The article: On 4 May 2018, the Swedish Academy announced that following the preceding internal struggles the Nobel laureate for literature selected in 2018 will be postponed until 2019, when two laureates will be selected.[29][28] The announcement was made after several members had left or declared their intention to resign from the Academy, leaving it without a quorum for making decisions or nominating candidates for the literature prize.[95]

The main page: The 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature is postponed until 2019.

Shouldn't there be more detail about the actual controversy, that the Academy is implicated in covering up sexual crimes committed by one of their associates? As it stands, you get no explanation unless you go look it up. cnte (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the decision made, then. It doesn't matter if there are many reasons, the sexual assault scandal is clearly the primary one. There should be more details, probably even an entire separate article on the scandal. cnte (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The sexual assault scandal was not the primary one, just the one that media (clearly) decied to highlight. --cart-Talk 11:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Literature → Nobel Prize for Literature – The "in" is Swenglish, i.e. a dictionary translation without better knowledge of normal English. (Swedish Academy's English and that of the Nobel Foundation, leave much to be desired.) Wikipedia should not endorse a translation error. See discussion also in previous section here! SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current form is common enough in English. It can as easily be the Nobel Prize in (the field of)...literature, chemistry, etc., as the Nobel Prize for literature, chemistry, etc. No pressing need to change the status quo. Dohn joe (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we should make excuses for, and spread, poor grammar by adding things in parentheses that we possibly might be able to read between the lines. Clarity is always best. And the pressing need is proper English. Wikipedia is used by many schoolkids nowadays. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say, is that "Nobel Prize in Literature" is in fact proper English, as its usage in myriad reliable sources shows. Dohn joe (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I do not agree. Those references are in deference to, and/or are a result of, the original error, which was an error and is an error. If you suggested Nobel Prize in the field of literature we could discuss that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
"XXXX Prize in XXXX" is plain, proper English. See Harold_W._McGraw_Prize_in_Education, Julian_Corbett_Prize_in_Naval_History, among many others. Dohn joe (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Irrelevant examples. In some cases, where for obviously could be misunderstood (that prize was used for education; that was a prize because it was outstanding for naval history), in is used. That's the way the English language works (very well, in fact). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeWoodzing (talk • contribs)

Discussion

AusLondonder makes the point that they don't accept it is improper in English. Agree totally, but this goes further... Wikipedia is not the place to correct current English usage. We use English as we find it. That same argument, that those who use in are in some way using incorrect English and that Wikipedia should instead set a good example, seems to be the main argument of the proposer SergeWoodzing and of at least one supporter In ictu oculi as well. This is prescriptive linguistics, and is old-fashioned, as modern linguistics is descriptive, acknowledging that English for example is an an ever-evolving language as is also pointed out above. And it's also contrary to Wikipedia policy and principles. Andrewa (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I will continue to try to eliminate errors made because of Swenglish translations whereverer I can and no matter how far they have spread. There is still such a thing as an error in language, no matter how modern we might want to be. Nobel Prize for Literature is (1) sufficiently known and (2) irrefutably correct and (3) does not set a bad example and sabotage the hard work of English teachers. Language is for communication and only has rules to make that as facile as possible for everyone. This is especially important when it comes to our big international languages, which will be harder and harder to use effectively the more rules we abandon and the vaguer or more sloppy usage becomes. I have corrected hundreds if not thousands of Swenglish errors since I began editing Wikipedia in 2006, logged in from 2009. Many of those corrections have been necessary because without knowing both Swedish (or Danish or Norwegian) and English other readers would not even have been able to figure out what was meant. My corrections have normally been appreciated by Scandinavians and others alike and (because?) I don't get personal or sarcastic when making them. I'm trying to be helpful to other users, English teachers and our readers here, whenever possible. If that's not possible on this page and detail, of course I know that consensus rules. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation. But you you have no right to use Wikipedia to promote your desire to reverse the trend you see to vaguer or more sloppy usage, and that seems to be exactly what you are doing.
The claim that without knowing both Swedish (or Danish or Norwegian) and English other readers would not even have been able to figure out what was meant does not seem even remotely relevant to this particular RM, and frankly I am very concerned that it may not apply to many (if any) of the hundreds if not thousands of Swenglish errors that you claim to have corrected either.
I am not raising this as a behavioral issue. I accept that you are trying to be helpful to other users, English teachers and our readers here. I am trying to work with you to resolve what I see as a major disagreement between us as to how English Wikipedia works.
Agree that Nobel Prize for Literature is (1) sufficiently known.
But disagree that it is (2) irrefutably correct, if by that you mean that the current title is incorrect.
And the major sticking point is (3) does not set a bad example and sabotage the hard work of English teachers. The current title does not do that at all. If these English teachers are marking students down for using the current title, it may well be they who are in error.
But nor is it Wikipedia's agenda to correct these teachers, however misguided they may be. We simply use English as we find it attested in reliable secondary sources. What use others make of our decisions regarding article names is up to them. Andrewa (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Much of that was very discouraging. By "irrefutabaly correct" I only meant that it is the only version that is so, whereas, in can be discussed as not so (civilly?) by people of differnent persuasions. What happened to WP:AGF? I believe we all have the right to our own opinions? In any case I now feel severely reprimanded and much less interested in trying to help readers of English comprehend some of the severe Swenglish on this project which often is very hard to comprehend for them. But you're right that this is not one such case. You are also the first administrator to make my work with that feel like it's allmost some sort of vandalism. That really hurts. I'm very sorry that my move request turned into something so controversial and dark. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I could and should have phrased it more gently, but I do not see how.
By "irrefutabaly correct" I only meant that it is the only version that is so... Exactly. This is your opinion, and I respect that. But this is prescriptive linguistics, and irrelevant in terms of our article title policy.
whereas, in can be discussed as not so (civilly?) by people of differnent persuasions. What happened to WP:AGF? I believe we all have the right to our own opinions? Certainly we have that right, and I am not trying to discourage you from expressing yours. Nor am I accusing you of lack of good faith, or of not being here for the right reasons. But I am of the opinion that your program of enforcing the eradication of what you see as Swenglish appears contrary to long-established Wikipedia policy and practice, and that you should review it and at the very least refine your criteria for these edits. And yes, that does bring us into some degree of conflict, and I don't like it either. But we need to resolve it and move on.
In any case I now feel severely reprimanded and much less interested in trying to help readers of English comprehend some of the severe Swenglish on this project which often is very hard to comprehend for them. But you're right that this is not one such case. Feel free to raise other cases, where you feel that severe Swenglish is a problem, on my talk page, or ping me on the appropriate talk page. They can be old ones long forgotten by everyone else, or new ones under discussion, or anywhere in between. I must point out that it was you who raised the question of your other edits... hundreds if not thousands of Swenglish errors... suggesting that this was a similar case. You now seem to have shifted ground on this.
You are also the first administrator to make my work with that feel like it's allmost some sort of vandalism. That really hurts. Again, it was you who suggested that this was just one of hundreds if not thousands of similar "corrections" that have so far gone unchallenged. Again, you now seem to have shifted ground on this. Perhaps that is progress, and you now recognise that this is different to all the others, and perhaps the others all improved Wikipedia. Or perhaps at least some of them were based on a similar mistake. I think you should at least consider that possibility. Admins cannot be everywhere. Perhaps others have fallen through the cracks. It happens all the time.
allmost some sort of vandalism. That really hurts. Well said. I am sorry that you feel severely reprimanded, I was trying to avoid that. But you do seem to have made a fundamental mistake in this proposal, and when challenged you suggested that hundreds if not thousands of other edits were made on similar grounds, and that you would continue to try to eliminate errors made because of Swenglish translations whereverer I can and no matter how far they have spread. Do you see why that is of concern to me? Andrewa (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes I see it, but simultaneously I see (1) a serious threat to my continued contributions to English Wikipedia in your (2) unwarranted lack of good faith in me based on one single disagreement about one single preposition, which I have admitted is not a clear-cut case while maintaining that for cannot be disputed as correct while in can be disputed (if we respect each other's opinions). That little difference - what cannot or can reasonably be disputed - is what the move proposal was about and for, not about incriminating myself as a vandal who very possibly (according to you) has made hundreds if not thousands of non-constructive edits amounting to disruption. It remains my opinion that English teachers should teach prize for literature not prize in literature, but obviously (?), while respecting your opinion, I do not wish to force any such opinions of mine on anyone. I state my case. I never demand that anyone must agree. And I guarantee you, I have no other agenda than improving the language on this project, as best I know how, in whatever way I feel it could and should be improved. The agenda includes helping the many valuable Swedish contributors here with some of their English, which I am able to do because I often understand what they actually want said, thinking in Swedish while writing in English, since I know both languages very well. One would assume an agenda like that might be encouraged, not discouraged, especially by a respected adiministrator. ? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I have not questioned your behaviour, but you now seem to be questioning mine. This is not the place for that. Andrewa (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Though English has been my first langauge for 68 years, this sentence confused me for clarity, and frankly, scared me a bit: The claim that 'without knowing both Swedish (or Danish or Norwegian) and English other readers would not even have been able to figure out what was meant' does not seem even remotely relevant to this particular RM, and frankly I am very concerned that it may not apply to many (if any) of the 'hundreds if not thousands of Swenglish errors' that you claim to have corrected either (bold by me to show what I may have misunderstood).
I'm sincerely sorry if I incorrectly took it it as a vailed threat and rather severe criticism of potentially very bad behavior on my part when I've corrected all those errors, in good faith and with every good intention and with intimate knowledge of both languages, since 2006. What, more exactly did you otherwise mean? (I'm putting the question here, not on my talk page in response to your entry there, because it is more-or-less relevant to part of my motivation for this move request. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Then let us wait until this RM closes, and then take it from there in the appropriate place. Andrewa (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article name

I believe this article needs to be renamed as Nobel Prize for Literaure given that:

Any objections? Abecedare (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The Nobel Foundation as well as the Swedish Academy call the prize the Nobel Prize in Literature on their web sites. --K1812 (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Aha. I see that the Nobel Foundation itself uses both variants on its website, e.g., in, for. Given that, I don't think this is a worthwhile move to debate since it makes little practical difference to the reader; so I'll withdraw my motion. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
It seems that the Nobel Foundation launched a new version of their web site between August 13 and August 15, and on that occasion also changed their opinion as to the name of the literature prize - which doesn't necessarily mean that we have to share their views... --K1812 (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"A Swedish literature prize"?

I think attributing a nationality to the prize is unnecessary, and potentially confusing, particularly in the article's very first sentence. There's enough room for such details in the rest of the article. Eelworm (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Recorded nominees

A new section was recently added to this article: 'Recorded nominees'. Despite the noble effort of creating it, I see a few issues.

  • This section is way too long - it makes up at least 80% of the article now - and it's still under construction, right now it's only up until 1966. If it is relevant, it should probably be its own article, like List of Nobel laureates in Literature is.
  • Is it really relevant though? As stated in this article: "Members of the Academy, members of literature academies and societies, professors of literature and language, former Nobel literature laureates, and the presidents of writers' organizations are all allowed to nominate a candidate. ... Thousands of requests are sent out each year, and as of 2011 about 220 proposals were returned". This suggests that being nominated for the prize is not necessarily very notable, as hundreds of people are nominated every year.
  • The section is completely unsourced! If that doesn't change, it needs to be removed regardless of relevance.

Any thoughts? Lennart97 (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a cavalcade of original research, and without any sources, I'd say it needs hiding at the very least. It just reeks of fluff. doktorb wordsdeeds 00:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Lennart97: I have hidden the entire section until/unless somebody finds a source. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@Doktorbuk: Thanks for the decisive action! This seems like a good temporary solution to me. Lennart97 (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I propose that the link List of Nobel laureates in Literature go near the top of article, either in the text or inside the infobox. I have no opinion which. At the moment, it only seems to be in the 'Laureates' section and then the 'See also' section. This isn't maximally helpful. Some people don't know what a laureate is (the introduction doesn't define it), so they wouldn't think to click the 'Laureates' section. Many people wouldn't think to look in 'See also' for links of high relevance, as it's a more natural location for links of medium or even low relevance. Gvros8 (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

2018 controversy – misleading passage

Good online sources seem scarce and often behind paywalls and I haven't got the time to sift them through, but the passage

"The three members resigned in protest over the decision by Sara Danius, the board secretary, not to take what they felt was appropriate legal action against Arnault.[98][23][105] Two former permanent secretaries, Sture Allén and Horace Engdahl, called Danius a weak leader.[98]"

is misleading as I recall the events. The impression is that Allén and Engdahl sided with (or might even be two of) the three members who resigned in criticising Danius for not taking sufficient action against Arnault; in fact, as I recall it, they criticised Danius for the opposite reasons. 151.177.58.208 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The passage is misleading and also incorrect. In fact, the three members that resigned did not criticised Danius but sided with Danius efforts. Mondrian (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nobel_Prize_in_Literature/Archive_3&oldid=1243986500"